2007-2008 UCLA ACADEMIC SENATE REVIEW OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
Internal Review Team:
Ronald Miech, Undergraduate Council, Mathematics, Review Team Chair
Panagiotis Christofides, Graduate Council, Chemical & Biomolecular Engr
James Gober, Graduate Council, Chem & Biochem
Joseph Watson, Undergraduate Council, Psychr & Biobehav Sci
External Review Team:
Cristina Amon, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto
Brian J. Cantwell, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University
Date of Site Visit:
Date of Report:
February 4-5, 2008
May 9, 2008
Approved by the Graduate Council:
Approved by the Undergraduate Council:
May 9, 2008
May 2, 2008
Appendix I:
Site Visit Schedule
Appendix II:
External Reviewers’ Reports
Appendix III:
Self-Review Report (The self-review was previously distributed. If you
need a hard copy, please contact the Academic Senate Office at extension 62959).
2007-08 Academic Senate Review of the
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Introduction
The Review Committee was impressed by the quality of the Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering (MAE). The faculty is a very active and productive research group, its research
teams are well-funded, and it educates a steady stream of graduates each year. There are, however,
several matters that need to be addressed.
The question of diversity is very conspicuous. The Department has 31 regular faculty. Two are
woman. One was appointed in 1982, the other in 1984. There are no African Americans or Hispanics on
the regular faculty. In the academic year 2004-05 three women earned a MAE PhD, in 2005-2006 the
number was two, and in 2006-07 it dropped to one. In the same three year span 54 men in the
Department earned a doctorate.
Difficulties arose from the mandated increase in undergraduate enrollments in l998 and the
increased popularity of mechanical and aerospace engineering as a major field. The number of
undergraduate majors in MAE rose from 349 in 1998-1999 to 710 in the Fall of 2007. The size of the
introductory courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels have increased, dramatically in some
cases.
The Department added 12 regular faculty since 1999 and lost 13. See the listing “Faculty
Recruitment and Separations” in the appendix.
The Review Committee recommends:
1. The Department, with the encouragement of the Dean, should make diversity one of its goals.
(Diversity is not mentioned on the list of Departmental goals which are stated on page 1 of its selfreview.) In addition, in the Spring of 2009, the Department should report to the Undergraduate and
Graduate Councils what these goals are in the Progress Review Report. In the Spring of 2011, the two
Councils request a report on to what extent these goals have been attained.
The department take steps to optimize recruiting women and members of underrepresented
groups during upcoming searches for new faculty. This might be done by keeping the searches less
narrow with regard to specific research areas, thus increasing the possibility of attracting and hiring the
very best candidates. It should also consult with Vice Provost Rosina Becerra for ideas on what help is
available from the administration on extending diversity.
2. The Dean has authorized 35.5 regular FTE for the Department. The Department and the Dean
make an aggressive effort to fill the four vacant FTE. Once this is done they will have made a step
toward resolving the questions about large classes, the lack of junior and middle-level female faculty, and
the possibility of reaching the Departmental goal of 45 faculty FTE.
3. The Department implement an enrollment cap of 30 to 40 for the discussion sections of its
basic, introductory, junior-level courses. Although this will require an increase in TA FTE, one has to
keep in mind that the number of MAE majors has doubled—from 349 to 710—since the last review, and
the number of students earning a MS degree or a Ph.D. has increased by 25% and 15%, respectively.
4. The faculty make an effort to meld the undergraduates into the Department. We can offer
some suggestions on how this might be done: Take a busload of students each quarter on a wellpublicized visit to one of the Department’s Industrial Affiliates to give them a view of what engineering
problems exist these days. Introduce students entering the junior level to seniors who would act as
1
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
informal advisors to the newcomers. Have regular faculty offer an introductory talks on their research.
However, these are only suggestions; the faculty will probably have additional ideas on how to make the
undergraduates a more integral part of the Department.
Professor Richard Wesel, who became the Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs last
July, is working on the problem of improving the mentoring of undergraduates in the School of
Engineering. He has been talking to the faculty throughout the School, encouraging them to experiment
with different ways of bringing the undergraduates “into the fold.” Given Professor Wesel’s enthusiasm
and the cooperation of the Department, progress can be expected here.
5. Similarly, as in (4), bring about closer faculty interaction with the graduate students.
Particular attention should be paid to the mentoring of graduate students. One could make
suggestions—seminars focusing each quarter on a different research theme, hosting coffee hours where
all students and faculty are invited, etc.—but this is also a task that must be worked out by the faculty.
6. Final Recommendation. The Graduate and Undergraduate Councils recommend that the next
review be scheduled for AY 2015-2016 pending a satisfactory progress review report.
Overview of the Department Within the School
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE) is one of seven departments in the Henry Samueli
School of Engineering (HSSE). The seven, along with the size of their faculty, are
Regular
Faculty
Bioengineering
Chemical and Biomolecular
6
12
Temporary
FTE
0.97
2.47
Civil and Environmental
15
4.51
Computer Science
36
2.79
Electrical Engineering
45
7.25
Materials Science
11
1.98
Mechanical and Aerospace
31
7.06
156
27.03
The number in the second column is the number of regular (tenured and tenure track) faculty in the
Department. The third column is the number of temporary FTE available; each FTE pays for eight
courses taught by adjuncts and lecturers. Thus, in terms of faculty, the three larger departments in the
School are Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
The Fall of 2007 enrollments by major and degree were:
Bioengineering
Chemical and Biomolecular
Civil and Environmental
Computer Science
Electrical Engineering
Materials Science
Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering Online
Undergraduates
209
374
302
548
563
76
710
2782
2
MS
34
7
47
164
127
30
122
63
594
Ph.D.
60
68
66
180
192
52
134
752
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
The number of degrees awarded in 2006-07 were as follows:
BS
6
57
64
130
121
18
123
519
Bioengineering
Chemical and Biomolecular
Civil and Environmental
Computer Science
Electrical Engineering
Materials Science
Mechanical and Aerospace
Total
MS
26
8
40
47
80
14
69
284
Ph.D.
13
15
7
27
56
15
24
157
In reviewing these tables, one sees that the MAE is at or near the top in all areas.
The Faculty
The number of regular faculty in MAE over the last eight years has been (with small oscillations)
31. There have been losses of two professors to MIT, one to Georgia Tech, and one to Illinois. Each of
the departments of Mechanical Engineering at these schools was listed in the top five of similar
departments by the U.S. News and World Report ratings of 2007. The UCLA Department was rated at
15.
See the “Faculty Recruitment and Separations” list in the appendix for details.
The Department has been authorized 35.5 FTE regular FTE by Dean Vijay Dhir.
The teaching load for the regular faculty is three full courses each year. The self-review states
that the teaching load is four classes a year, but most faculty when questioned say their teaching load is
three classes a year. The confusion stems from the fact that most regular faculty are credited each year
with two sections of the half-course MAE 260, Current Topics in Mechanical Engineering. MAE 260 is
basically a course for assisting Ph.D. students with their dissertations.
The number of courses taught by the regular faculty is reduced by the usual credits for: (1)
administration—two courses for the chair, one for each of the two vice chairs; and (2) faculty with a
major role in a research center or as a journal editor. The amount of teaching credit for these tasks is
negotiated with the Dean. New faculty are given a one course reduction in their first year.
The faculty are split into seven subgroups: Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Manufacturing and
Design, Heat and Mass Transfer, MEMS and Nanotechnology, Structural and Solid Mechanics, and
Systems and Control. Individuals may belong to several of these groups.
The faculty is also engaged in a number of interdisciplinary, inter-institutional research activities.
Thirteen such projects are briefly described on pages 14-16 of the Departmental self-review.
The faculty is active in research. Eighty research articles were published in 2006-2007. Research
grants average $600,000 per faculty. In 2006-07 the Department granted 69 Masters degrees and 24
Ph.D.’s.
In sum, the faculty is very active, very productive.
Female Faculty
The School of Engineering has 15 women as full-time faculty and two (Denise Aberle and Ioanna
Kakoulli) with joint appointments. Ten of the 15 full-time faculty arrived at UCLA in 2002 or later.
3
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
Female Faculty in the School of Engineering
Name
Department
Rank
At UCLA since
Ass’t Prof
MD
Year of Ph.D. and
Institution
2004 U of Akron
1979 UCLA (MD)
Kasko, Andrea
Aberle, Denise
Bioengnr
Bioengnr/CNSI
Chang, Jane
Segura, Tatiana
Chem & Bio
Chem & Bio
Prof
Ass’t Prof
1997
2004
MIT
Northwestern
1997
2004
Hogue, Terri
Jay, Jennifer
Civil & Env
Civil & Env
Ass’t Prof
Ass’t Prof
2003
1999
Ariz
MIT
2003
2002
Greibach, Sheila
Estrin, Deborah
Zhang, Lixie
Computer Sci
Computer Sci
Computer Sci
Prof
Prof
Prof
1963
1985
1989
Harvard
MIT
MIT
1969
2000
1996
Alwam, Abeer
Cabric, Danijela
Huffaker, Diana
van der Scharr
Electrical
Electrical
Electrical
Electrical
Prof
Ass’t Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
1992
2006
1994
2001
MIT
UC Berkeley
Texas
Endhoven
1992
2007
2006
2005
Prof
Prof
1982
1984
Caltech
UC Berkeley
1982
1984
Ass’t Prof
Ass’t Prof
2003 Harvard
1999 Oxford
Karagozian, Ann
Lavine, Adrienne
Huang, Yuan
Kakoulli, Ioanna
MAE
MAE
Materials Sci
Materials Sci
2006
2004
2006
2005
Note that the Departments of Civil Engineering and Electrical Engineering have been relatively
successful in recruiting female faculty in recent years.
The Graduate Program
The overall state of the graduate program of the MAE Department is excellent; the program has
first-rate, highly dedicated faculty, very strong and dependable external research funding, attracts
excellent graduate students, and produces high-quality professionals who are highly recruited by industry
and academia. The graduate program is consistently ranked in the top-15 in the nation despite its
relatively small faculty size, which is about 75% of the average faculty size in the top-10 departments.
With respect to graduate student enrollment, the average number of graduate students (both MS
and Ph.D.) in MAE over the five-year period 2002-06 has been 236 with a low of 212 students in the Fall
2005 and a high of 265 in the Fall 2003. This average enrollment is a 16% increase over the average of
203 in the previous review. The average enrollments for ME and AE are 197 and 39 students
respectively. In the Fall 2007 the total enrollment was 254 students; 115 were Ph.D. students and 139
MS students. Most of the MS students follow the course-only MS track. Based on Fall 2007 enrollments,
the ratio of Ph.D. per faculty is 3.71 and MS per faculty is 4.48. Thus, the ratio of graduate students per
faculty is 8.19. These are excellent numbers and compare well with the corresponding top-10 MAE
departments in the country.
With respect to graduate degrees over the five-year period 2002-06, the average annual
production of MS graduates has been 59 and Ph.D. graduates 22. These numbers are higher than those
of the last review, namely 47 and 19, respectively, even though the faculty has been roughly the same
4
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
(31). Per faculty, the Department produces 1.84 MS and 0.69 Ph.D. graduates each year, which is an
excellent level of production when compared with the other top-10 MAE departments.
The quality of the incoming graduate students is very strong and the Department makes every
effort to recruit the best students from all over the world. All the Ph.D. students are supported through a
combination of research and teaching assistantships. The course-based MS students are not supported.
Over the past three years the Department has implemented a new fellowship program which has proved
to be very successful. During our visit, all of the 12 graduate students with whom the committee talked
(7 male, 5 female) seemed to be overall satisfied with the program. The students believe that the job
prospects are very good after their graduation based on the job searches of the graduating students in
their groups.
With respect to instruction of graduate courses, according to the Chair and Dean, almost all the
instruction at the graduate level is done by the regular faculty. Given the large number of course-only
MS students, this graduate course load (particularly of the introductory courses) is very significant and
limits the ability of the faculty to offer specialty graduate level courses for their doctoral research group
students, which is a source of concern
With respect to the graduate program surveys, the doctoral exit survey gives very high marks to
the program. However, the survey of all graduate in the Department revealed different results with only
44.2% of graduate students indicating “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the “overall quality of the faculty
mentoring,” which may be the result of a small number of student responses (17.2%) and the limited
mentoring of course-only MS graduate students.
We, the Review Committee, suggest that the Department make an effort to improve the
interaction among the graduate students, particularly doctoral students. Perhaps organizing an MAE
seminar series focusing each quarter on a different theme, and/or hosting a coffee-hour where all
students an faculty are invited would be steps in this direction. Based on graduate student interviews, it
seems that graduate students are quite isolated in their respective research groups.
The Undergraduate Program
In 1998 the president of the UC system mandated an increase in the number of undergraduates
admitted to the University of California system. Consequently, the School of Engineering’s undergraduate
enrollments increased from approximately 2000 then to 2782 in the Fall of 2007.
The number of undergraduates in MAE at various times since 2001 were as follows:
Lower Division
Upper Division
Total
2001-02
173
310
483
2005-06
156
390
545
2007-08
710
Teaching resources have not kept up with the number of majors. Starting from the year 2002-03:
There have been 30 regular faculty (including Dean Dhir, there are 31).
The number of temporary faculty FTE has averaged 6.5; the “temporary” numbers for the
last three years have been 7.15, 7, and 7.
TA FTE has increased slowly over the last six years from 12.5 to 17.5.
Thus, while undergraduate enrollments have doubled, the size of the regular faculty has been static,
temporary FTE has leveled out at 7, and TA FTE was increased by 40%.
5
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
Students in MAE, as well as other engineering majors, spend their freshman and sophomore
years taking preparatory classes in mathematics, physics, chemistry and general education courses,
which are given in the College of Letters and Science. Their classes in engineering start in earnest in
their junior year.
Engineering class size varies. The first set of digits below gives the enrollments in MAE junior
and senior classes given in the Fall of 2007. The smaller numbers, those under 20, usually represent lab
classes; a faculty member supervises each of the labs. Larger numbers, those more than 40, are from
introductory classes. The italicized, underlined digits denote courses taught by tenured or tenure-track
faculty.
3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 25, 26, 26, 30, 32, 37,
42, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 56, 63, 67, 71, 77, 86, 96
This second set is from the Winter of 2008.
2, 12, 15, 15, 16, 16, 20, 22, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30,
31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 52, 62, 65, 68, 73, 77, 86, 92, 108
The “large” classes usually have two lecture sessions each week. Each session lasts for two
hours and is taught by a faculty member. Most classes have a weekly, one hour or two hour discussion
section taught by a teaching assistant.
The size of the discussion sections varies. In the table below, taken from Winter 2007-08
enrollments, the first column contains the course number, the second column is the course lecture size,
the third column is the size of a discussion section, and the fourth column is the size of a second
discussion section.
MAE 101
102
103
105A
105D
131A
150A
182A
86
73
92
86
73
43
49
108
65
43
68
68
65
65
52
52
77
39
38
Thus MAE 101, Statics and Strength of Materials, had 86 students and one discussion section; MAE 105A,
Introduction to Engineering Thermodynamics, had 108, split into two discussion sections, one with 65
students, the other with 43.
To summarize the undergraduate program up to this point, it appears that the Department has
met the problems arising from doubling enrollments by doubling class sizes, doubling the size of
discussion sections, and putting a heavy load and increased responsibilities on the teaching assistants. It
is not an unreasonable first reaction, but it is time the faculty and the administration, with its control of
resources, move on to a second level. That is, refining the very rough approximate solutions that were
made in stage one into a pedagogically sound undergraduate program..
6
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
The teaching evaluations for each of the MAE classes indicate that the level of instruction in each
class is, on the whole, very good.
There is an opportunity for undergraduates to take individual or small group research projects.
The number of students taking advantage of these options recently was:
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Fall, Winter 2007-08
MAE 199
(Individual)
55
38
21
18
MAE 194
(Group)
59
26
18
5
Aside from these individual and small group research opportunities (the MAE194 and MAE199) there
seems to be little one-to-one contact between undergraduates and the faculty.
There have been two major changes in course requirements in the last eight years. First, the
number of required courses has dropped. In MAE this number fell from 196 to 182 quarter units.
Second, all engineering students must take a three course “technical breadth requirement” outside their
major. All course for the breadth requirement are offered within engineering. The. A number of
students are opting for classes in accounting and other business topics. The faculty’s reaction to these
two changes is mixed, but they have become an accepted part of the curriculum.
As for student advising, part of the problem lies in the fact that the engineering majors spend
the bulk of their first two years taking classes (in chemistry, mathematics, physics, and the life sciences)
in the College of Letters and Science. They can get advice on what courses to take from the ten advisors
that work in Dean’s office, but the advice is limited to sequencing, i.e., what to take when.
In addition, students are told when they enroll the first time that a specific member of the faculty
is to act as their advisor. MAE Students are free to meet with their advisor at any mutually agreed upon
time and are required to meet their advisor at the beginning of their junior year, and again one year
before their expected graduation.
But, to quote the self-review, “The enforcement procedure for the required sessions has been
spotty.” The new Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Richard Wesel, a Professor of Electrical
Engineering, has been talking to the Departmental Vice Chairs in an attempt to generate ideas on how to
do a better job of convincing undergraduates that they are part of the School. At the present time he is
encouraging the departments to experiment with different methods to reach this goal. He will need the
cooperation and assistance of all the departments to succeed in this effort.
It is difficult to judge what the undergraduates think of the Department. There are the teaching
evaluations for each class which, as mentioned earlier, are very good. But only four undergraduates
answered to the Department’s request for a written response to the Department’s self-review. Similarly,
only four appeared for interviews with the Review Committee.
Thus the faculty is faced with the task of leading an effort to convince the undergraduates that
they are part of the school.
The Department underwent a successful review of their undergraduate curriculum by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in 2006. ABET is the recognized accrediting agent for
college and university programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and technology. It is a
federation of 28 professional and technical societies representing these fields.
7
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
Faculty Diversity
The “Faculty, Female, 6.5%” entry in the table on page 17 of the self-review reduces, in specific
numbers, to two women. The two are senior faculty. One arrived at UCLA in 1982, the other in 1984.
The statement on page 18, paragraph 2 of the self-review states “[faculty diversity] … is
somewhat below the national average [for MAE]. One more woman would put us above the national
averages” is true. But this average is low. The number of regular female faculty at each of the top 16
departments of mechanical engineering in the U.S. News and World Report of 2007 is usually three or
four. MIT is an exception; eleven women are on the faculty, seven of whom received their PhD in 1998 or
later.
The number of women at these schools can be found by going to the departmental web sites,
clicking on personnel and then the individual names. This usually produces a photo and short biography
of the individual. If no photo appears and the gender of an individual is in question the problem can be
usually be resolved by “googling” the person’s name.
Recruiting female faculty will be difficult, for the number of women in the U.S. who are
permanent residents and earned a MAE PhD is low. Two tables illustrate this:
All
Earned PhDs,
MAE, 2005
U.S. Citizens
or Permanent
Residents
Women
1053
149
375
54
The numbers above are taken from Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5 at:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/content.cfm?pub_id=3757&id=2
The ethnicity tables for UCLA’s MAE Department (Appendix, pp. 2-3) provide a similar picture.
The chart below gives the number of people earning a PhD in MAE:
Ethnicity UCLA MAE
2004-05
Foreign
Domestic
2005-06
2006-07
13
19
16
1
4
8
The “Foreign” category above is identified by first defining what a “Domestic” resident is:
Domestic: No visa in the database; amnesty applicant, approved petitioner
for immigrant visa, awaiting immigrant visa number; US citizen; immigration
card holder, political asylee; permanent resident; and refugee.
Then, anyone who is not “Domestic” is “Foreign.”
A further complication is that there are 198 engineering schools that award doctoral degrees
(according to the U.S. News and World Report of March 28, 2008).
Finally, diversifying the faculty is not listed as a goal on page 1 of the Department’s self-review.
8
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Report
In sum, diversifying the faculty for UCLA’s MAE will require that it become a goal and that a well
thought-out plan for attaining that goal be developed and implemented.
Student Diversity
Numbers on the gender and ethnicity distributions of the graduates, by degrees, for the years
2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 are listed in the Appendix.
To summarize, women constitute about (20 + 5) % of the total number of students earning a
Bachelor’s degree. The percentages for women earning a Masters in Aerospace (15, 12, 42) (%) vary a
bit because of the small numbers involved. The relatively stable percentages for the Masters in
Mechanical Engineering (14, 20, 20) % reflect the larger numbers for that group. The number of women
earning a doctorate is, in all cases, small.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald Miech, Undergraduate Council, Mathematics, Review Team Chair
James Gober, Graduate Council, Chem & Biochem
Panagiotis Christofides, Graduate Council, Chemical & Biomolecular Engr
Joseph Watson, Undergraduate Council, Psychr & Biobehav Sci
9
UCLA
Degrees Awarded in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
by Gender
2004-05 through 2006-07
2004-05 Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
5
28
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
2
11
Manufacturing Engineering
Master of Science
Male
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
21
82
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
13
78
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Female
Male
3
10
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
10
36
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
1
7
Doctor of Philosophy
Male
2
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
15
69
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
11
43
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Female
Male
2
19
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
10
32
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
5
12
Manufacturing Engineering
Master of Science
Male
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Female
Male
13
68
Master of Science
Master of Science
Female
Male
11
43
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Female
Male
1
23
2005-06 Aerospace Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
2006-07 Aerospace Engineering
1
1
Prepared by: UCLA Department of Analysis and Information Management (AIM) - kew
Source: CSS Degrees file (IARS) in the Degrees Awarded view
UCLA
Degrees Awarded in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
by Ethnicity
2004-05 through 2006-07
For Internal Management Purposes Only*
2004-05
2005-06
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
10
1
4
2
16
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
2
1
2
8
Manufacturing Engineering
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
1
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
1
50
2
8
2
7
33
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
25
1
31
5
5
24
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Foreign
White Non-Hispanic
12
1
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
17
3
2
4
20
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
2
1
1
4
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
1
1
Aerospace Engineering
* Given the small cell sizes reported here, individual students' personal information could be
revealed; thus, this report should be confined to internal university management purposes only.
NOTE: These ethnicity categories conform with IPEDS reporting definitions.
Prepared by: UCLA Department of Analysis and Information Management (AIM) - kew
Source: CSS Degrees file (IARS) in the Degrees Awarded view
UCLA
Degrees Awarded in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
by Ethnicity
2004-05 through 2006-07
For Internal Management Purposes Only*
2005-06
Mechanical Engineering
(Continued)
2006-07
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
1
31
3
6
5
6
32
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
19
12
1
7
15
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
White Non-Hispanic
2
18
1
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
13
3
2
4
3
17
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Hispanic
White Non-Hispanic
4
1
2
10
Manufacturing Engineering
Master of Science
Foreign
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
41
5
6
5
24
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Master of Science
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black Non-Hispanic
Foreign
Hispanic
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
13
1
13
3
6
18
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy
Asian or Pacific Islander
Foreign
Unstated, Unknown, Other
White Non-Hispanic
1
16
3
4
Aerospace Engineering
* Given the small cell sizes reported here, individual students' personal information could be
revealed; thus, this report should be confined to internal university management purposes only.
NOTE: These ethnicity categories conform with IPEDS reporting definitions.
Prepared by: UCLA Department of Analysis and Information Management (AIM) - kew
Source: CSS Degrees file (IARS) in the Degrees Awarded view
1
Appendix I: Site Visit Schedule
Academic Senate Program Review
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
February 4-5, 2008
All meetings are in Room 37-124 except as noted.
Site Visit Schedule
February 3, 2008
7:00 p.m. Dinner meeting: Initial organizational session for review team members only.
Tanino’s Ristorante, 1043 Westwood Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024, (310) 208-0444:
Ronald Miech, James Gober, Panagiotis Christofides, Joseph Watson, Cristina Amon, Brian Cantwell
February 4, 2008
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
1:15
2:00
2:45
3:15
3:40
.
4:00
6:30
Breakfast discussion with unit chair (Lavine) and vice chairs (Zhong and M’Closkey).
Meeting with Dean Vijay Dhir.
Meetings with faculty, organized by major field. Faculty may attend at any time if they
cannot make the time for their major field.
10:00 – 10:20 Systems and Control/Dynamics
10:20 – 10:40 Structural and Solid Mechanics
10:40 – 11:00 MEMS/Nano
11:00 – 11:20 Manufacturing and Design
11:20 – 11:40 Heat and Mass Transfer
11:40 – 12:00 Fluid Mechanics
Lunch – review team members only (at the Faculty Center)
Meetings with undergraduate students.
Meetings with graduate students.
Review of Teaching Assistant Program. Lavine, Lebon, Ruben, and representative teaching
assistants. Lavine/Lebon to leave around 3:00.
Review of Graduate Advising. Zhong, Castillo, Lebon
Review of Undergraduate Advising. M’Closkey, Brooks (and/or other counselor). (Note:
Meet with Associate Dean Wesel Day 2).
Closed session for review team only.
Dinner with review team and a few faculty. Il Moro Restaurant, 11400 West Olympic Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 575-3530 (Entrance on Purdue).
February 5, 2008
9:00
11:00
12:00
1:00
1:30
2:00
3:00
4:00
Teaching and research lab tours.
Open meetings with faculty and students who want them.
11 am
Professor Ann R. Karagozian
11:30
Ovi Chatterjee, student
Lunch – review team members only (at the Faculty Center).
Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, Rick Wesel.
Director of Annual and Special Giving, Leti McNeill.
Closed session.
Final review team meeting with chair and vice chair(s).
Exit meeting – 2121 Murphy Hall. EVC/Provost Scott Waugh, Dean Vijay Dhir, Graduate
Dean Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, Vice Provost Judith Smith, Review Team (Ronald Miech, James
Gober, Panagiotis Christofides, Joseph Watson, Cristina Amon, Brian Cantwell), Chair
Adrienne Lavine, UgC Chair Stuart Brown, GC Chair Jan Reiff, CPB Representative Paulo
Camargo, FEC Representative Richard Muntz
Contact:
For additional information, please contact
Janice Bedig
jbedig@ea.ucla.edu
1-310-825-2559 (Office)
1-818-259-0918 (Cell)
Appendix II: External Reviewers’ Reports
Cristina Amon, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto
Brian J. Cantwell, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Stanford University
Report of the External Review for the Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering of the
UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science
by
Cristina Amon
INTRODUCTION
The site visit of the external reviewers of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering (MAE) at UCLA was held on February 4 and 5, 2008. The following report
is based on meetings and interviews with professors, students and administrators (Chair
and Associate Chairs, Dean and other personnel as indicated in the site visit agenda),
presentations with overview of the department, candid discussions, visits to some of the
teaching and research laboratories, reviews of the institutional publications and the SelfReview document provided to the Review Team. In the preparation for the visit and
report, we have been guided by the “Academic Senate Guidelines for External Reviewers
(revised October 2001)”.
SUMMARY
•
There is great enthusiasm and high expectations for the current chair and leadership
of the MAE department, which has been recently revitalized. It appears that every
faculty member of the department is actively engaged in the educational enterprise
and strongly committed to the department, with an increased interest on shared
governance, particularly expressed by the junior faculty.
•
The number of full time professors is currently 31, with the expectation of growing
to 36 in the near future, whereas the ratio of undergraduate students to professors is
about 23, which is large when compared to peer departments. Despite this, there is
no indication that the delivery of the undergraduate programs and courses is
negatively affected by the large student/faculty ratio, that the students are unhappy
or not benefiting from the strong faculty members who at the same time are actively
engaged in world-class research. This is in part due to the large number of adjunct
professors, which doesn’t seem to be an issue of concern either, as we could judge
from our conversation with undergraduates and other professors. The MAE
department has developed an effective system to oversee the performance of the
adjunct professors through evaluations and other means. We suggest continuing to
monitor this and be ready to make corrections if and when needed. The department
is fortunate to be located in the LA area where there are many PhD employees of
high-tech and engineering companies who are genuinely interested in a strong
relationship with, and teaching service at, MAE at UCLA. The department has
been very effective in identifying and employing adjunct faculty members (parttime, non-tenure track lecturers) with strong industrial experience to offer special
elective courses, especially undergraduate engineering design and project courses.
There is no question that these individuals add a great deal to the department,
providing exciting possibilities and direct interaction with experienced engineers for
the undergraduates. However, the School of Engineering and Applied Science and
the MAE Department should continue to monitor closely any increase in the ratio of
non-tenured lectures to tenure track faculty since the responsibility for the
educational programs and its quality rests with the faculty.
•
The leadership is committed to the educational mission, and the faculty is engaged
in teaching and in developing innovative courses which will serve future
generations of engineers and researchers well. Promising new initiatives have been
launched for undergraduates and graduate students. Both undergraduate programs
are strong, with a good breadth of elective courses and MAE just successfully
completed the ABET accreditation. Regarding the graduate program, there is the
need, also expressed by the students, to have both a larger variety of graduate
courses and a greater frequency of the course offerings. Also, professors expressed
a strong interest to have the opportunity to teach more frequently courses in their
respective areas of expertise. Within the departmental constraints, the department
leadership should continue to make efforts to enable junior faculty to teach courses
in their fields. I note that three courses plus one seminar course per year is an
excellent teaching duty for the professors, and is comparable with other researchintensive universities. Two particular initiatives relevant to mention are:
o Undergraduate Program: The new breadth requirement along with the
reduction of total number of required units is a welcome initiative led by
the school and the department. This will allow the students to broaden
their horizons beyond the technical engineering courses, which provides
more time for co-curriculum activities and at the same time reduces the
technical elective courses the students are required to take. This is a
promising initiative which is important to continue monitoring its
evolution.
o Graduate Program: The graduate support for 1st year graduate students
seems an excellent approach; the department covers the cost of the
graduate student who in turn is required to serve as an RA for 2 terms and
a TA for 1 term. This allows the students and professors to have time to
initiate the research and change projects/advisers, if needs be. However,
even though this offers greater flexibility than in many other places, some
graduate students expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility to
change projects or professors once they arrive on campus.
•
The department has a stellar research program, at the level of top research-intensive
universities in the US and the world, with a healthy funding of about $600,000/year
per professor, about 3.5 PhD students/professor and over 8 grad students/professor.
In addition to the importance of excellence in research, it is essential to ensure that
the reward system also places importance on the commitment to excellence in
undergraduate education.
•
The student advising process seems be underdeveloped; we encourage the current
efforts to streamline the advising process and recommend to enhance
communications between students and teachers, and to provide students with
support and guidance.
•
The departmental budget appears to be extremely lean, as compared to peer
institutions; it is important to have budget flexibility to cover discretionary expenses
(e.g., green card processing fees and lawyer) and to seed new promising initiatives.
Therefore, the school and the university should provide necessary resources to
allow MAE to flourish. At the same time, the department should continue its
efforts to seek creative new sources of revenues and to increase the generation of
discretionary funds such as from philanthropic fundraising and opportunities
provided by the Industrial Affiliate Program.
•
There is a large master program which seems to represent a good source of revenue
for the department. Since many of these students are part-time students, special
efforts are required to engage them with the department.
•
Ethnic diversity is good whereas gender diversity is slightly below the average for
peer departments, in a discipline which is already quite low. This is acknowledged
by the leadership, and efforts are on-going to improve gender under-representation
in the faculty composition by not only ensuring broad representation in the pool of
candidates interviewed and the search committee composition but also by
broadening the research areas where excellent candidates are sought out. UCLA
MAE should be in an excellent position to seek out and effectively recruit female
candidates with the strong leadership provided by the Chair, the strong commitment
to diversity articulated by the Dean, and its location in the LA region within a
culturally-diverse population.
CLOSURE
This is a strong department, with an excellent body of students eager to succeed,
innovative educational programs, thriving faculty with outstanding productivity in
high-impact, relevant research. Given the undergraduate student population and the
desire and true potential for improving its ranking, the department with support from
the school and the university needs to increase the total number of tenure-track
professors and to continue its efforts to hire excellent faculty, in areas of
complementary strength, with special emphasis in gender diversity. There is a growing
sense of community fostered by the departmental leadership, and the students we met
are extremely proud to be affiliated with UCLA MAE which is the best warrantee to
become loyal ambassadors of the department and alma matter.
To: Tom Nykiel and the UCLA Academic Senate
February 20, 2008
From: Brian Cantwell, Stanford University
Subject: UCLA Site visit February 4 - 5, 2008
On February 4th and 5th I joined outside reviewer Cristina Amon, internal reviewers James
Gober, Christofides Panagiotis and Joseph Watson and review team chair Ronald Miech
in a review of the UCLA department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. The
department was last reviewed in June 1999.
I want to begin by thanking the department and especially the department chair Adrienne
Lavine and the vice-chairs Xiaolin Zhong and Robert M’Closkey for their hard work
preparing for this visit. The self-review document was thoughtfully prepared, complete
and well written. I fully concur with the overall assessment of the review team that the
department is strong externally with a reputation for world-class research, and internally
with a well-run academic program, excellent faculty and a large, growing cohort of very
good students.
We were not asked to review the research programs but to focus primarily on
administrative and student related matters so let me just briefly comment that funding
levels on a department wide basis are very impressive and the graduate students seem
well supported. The new Center for Cell Control is especially exciting.
In a letter prepared for the review team dated 30 January from Janice Reiff, Chair of the
Graduate Council, and Stuart Brown, Chair of the Undergraduate Council, we were asked
to comment particularly on three areas and I will organize my review as a response to this
letter.
A. Administrative, Organizational and Faculty Matters
The department is having to deal with two major problems: one is the large increase in
the undergraduate and graduate enrollment since 1999 amounting to a near doubling of
the student body, the other is the turnover in faculty during that same period that has
prevented the department from growing beyond 31 ladder faculty, the same as at the time
of the last review.
Since 2001, eight people including four younger faculty have been recruited away to
other first-rate universities. This is disappointing but also a clear indication that the
department is choosing its faculty well with only one failed tenure case among the twelve
who have left the department in that period. New faculty have been hired to fill the
vacancies but the net effect is that the department is running in place and has not been
able to grow as needed. Nevertheless the department must continue to recruit the very
best faculty.
Mechanical and Aerospace is one of the most popular majors these days and students
continue to be attracted to the department. As a consequence the number of affiliated
faculty has ballooned to cover part of the increase in teaching load. The report from the
senate refers to 15 newly affiliated faculty while the Reiff-Brown letter refers to 44
adjunct faculty and lecturers. While acknowledging that the affiliated faculty do enrich
the department with their enthusiasm and experience and often are some of the best
teachers in the department, I believe that such a large proportion of temporary faculty is
not a sign of health but a sign of stress. One would hope to limit the affiliated faculty to
the teaching of specialty courses and possibly some lab courses in partnership with ladder
faculty. As a general rule, courses covering fundamental concepts should be taught by
ladder faculty. Affiliated faculty involved with graduate student research should always
be partnered with a ladder faculty member.
I do not recall any discussion of departmental efforts to train or socialize the affiliated
faculty although an effort should be made to do this. This would probably not be easy to
do en masse given the widely varied schedules of these individuals but some one-on-one
training would be helpful. At the very least they should be made aware of university
policies on matters such as sexual harassment, diversity, cheating and the like if they are
not already.
I understand that there are two faculty searches currently in progress and with any luck
they will be successful. The review team felt, and I agree, that the department needs to be
very aggressive in pursuing new faculty if it is to reach a state where new faculty hiring
exceeds faculty losses so the number of ladder faculty can get beyond 31. There are 4.5
budgeted FTEs that are currently used to support 15 affiliated faculty members and
presumably one or more of these could be converted to ladder faculty but this would
entail an increased teaching burden on the ladder faculty. Raising the number of allocated
FTEs is a matter that should be seriously considered by the university. The department is
smaller than its peers. However the department needs to demonstrate that it can indeed
successfully fill the present searches and increase the number of ladder faculty beyond
the current number.
Diversity among the faculty is one of the most difficult challenges facing the traditional
engineering disciplines. Recruitment of women and under-represented minorities at all
levels is a never-ending task. The department is making an effort to do this and like most
departments across the country has been doing so for a long while. Diversity has
increased among the student population nationwide and similar increases should follow
for faculty. Yet the numbers remain small. The only solution is to make diversity an
explicit goal of the department and to adopt a targeted approach. But this may not be
feasible at a public university in California given the constraints of Proposition 209.
B. Student related matters
The department has a healthy mix of US and foreign students with a substantial majority
of US students. The spending of unrestricted funds from the Graduate Division to fund
nonresident tuition for foreign students would seem to be money well spent for the best
students. Aid for graduate students should be merit based regardless of country of origin.
I am not sure what is meant by the department’s growing dependence on “outside sources
of funding”. If it refers to increasing dependence on government contracts then there is a
long history. Graduate student funding in engineering departments across the country has
been primarily funded by government contracts since the end of World War II and the
department seems to be well positioned in this regard. If the sentence refers to the
department recognizing the need to find additional sources of unrestricted money then I
would agree that there is such a need. In fact one area of concern is the relatively small
size of the industrial affiliates program. There should be a concerted effort to increase the
number of companies involved (you have a great resource in Ann Karagozian’s rolodex)
and perhaps the membership fee that is currently $10K.
I do not know how to assess the results of the graduate student survey that gave the
department low marks but also had a very low response rate. The graduate students we
met with seemed to be relatively satisfied on the whole but as the conversation wore on
one could detect an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with some aspects of teaching quality.
I suspect that if we had more time some fairly deep concerns would have been revealed.
Still, the sample was just too small to draw any firm conclusions.
I have to say the format for interacting with the students was a little unsatisfying. We met
with only four undergraduates who were clearly student leaders heavily involved in
student projects, folks who would almost certainly be at the top of the scale in student
enthusiasm for the department. There were more graduate students who met with us but
in both cases I would have preferred a more informal format with more students involved
and the opportunity for more one-on-one interaction.
C. Staff, Space and Related Matters
The particular case of an out-of-status foreign graduate student mentioned in the ReiffBrown letter was discussed with the department chair but seems to be an isolated case. A
good deal of discussion was devoted to advising and a suggestion that was embraced by
the chair and vice-chairs and seems to be already implemented by Rick Wesel, Associate
Dean for Student Affairs, is to get more upper level students involved in advising new
students. This could be done by pairing faculty with an upper level undergrad or grad
student who would help provide many of the key advices that new students really need to
adapt. I understand that undergraduates will be notified much earlier of the requirement
that they meet with their advisors. Given the compressed nature of the MEA degree
program this is essential to prevent an early misstep that could force the student to extend
their degree program.
We live in a world where the body of knowledge needed to be an effective engineer
grows ever larger. As a result there has been tremendous pressure to increase the unit
requirements for traditional ABET approved engineering majors such as MEA. As a
result unit requirements are out of control often amounting to as much as the equivalent
of 4.5 years of normal coursework. If the university requirement to graduate is 180 units
then any major offered by the university should be do-able in 180 units. Yet there seems
to be this compulsion to cram increasing numbers of units into the undergraduate
curriculum on the mistaken belief that students stop learning when they are handed a
diploma.
The new technical breadth requirement seems to be motivated by a desire to bring this
beast under control and I applaud Dean Dhir’s efforts in this direction although some of
the faculty felt that there was not sufficient discussion of this requirement before it was
implemented.
In addition, faculty working in the newer fields such as nanotechnology expressed a
certain degree of dissatisfaction with the traditional MEA curriculum. A possible solution
to both issues may be a return to basics with increased emphasis on mathematics and
physics and reduced emphasis on traditional engineering courses. The future is almost
certain to bring increased pressure in this regard and it is probably not too soon to begin
the discussion of how to adapt the MAE curriculum to new, rapidly evolving fields while
providing an education with lifelong value.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important review. I hope these
remarks are helpful.
Appendix III: Self-Review Report